Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fennessy (talk | contribs) at 12:40, 7 July 2008 (hope this is the last of this...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

• notes

Stuff I'm reading:

Award

		The Golden Wiki Award
		I hereby award you this Barnstar for helping Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Political parties. --Megapen (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Haim Farhi

Jaakobou. I think I've found a source that will resolve the riddle of the year of Farhi's murder (Thomas Phillip also gives 1820 by the way), and provide further details to giver a richer text. Itzhak Ben-Zvi, Eretz-Israel under Ottoman Rule, 2nd ed. Jerusalem (Heb)1966 pp.319-22,339-43. This is in Hebrew, and if you can consult it, I've no doubt we'll get further details on our man, to do him justice, and work the page up. Thanks in the meantime for the groundwork. I find him and his remarkable family very interesting, and had you not drafted the page, I would never have had my curiosity stirred. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't find an online version of the book, and the closest target seemed, upon first inspection, to either be in Karmiel or Jerusalem. Don't believe I'll be making the trip anytime soon, sorry. Jaakobou 12:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Btw, it seems that the book's name is Template:Lang-he which is a bit different than the English name you provided. Jaakobou 12:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't you have interlibrary loans there? I know this is work, but in my home country, I can drop into any library anywhere and order a book located in any other library and have it within a week or two. Of course, this would be troublesome, but now that we have the article going, I should think that it's worth the effort to keep an eye out for sources like that, perhaps ask friends to look out for it or consult it and improve the article. I think in the long term with these articles, and the Farhi piece is long on background and short on details about the specifics of his life. It's a shame, that family, like so many in the area, was and still is, an amazing one, full of extraordinary people, and they deserve the best we can do for them.Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: I think I found what you were looking for

Ah darn, I should've indicated that I need an image of the route itself; those are just images of a sign for the route on a different route. Thanks for trying, though! Juliancolton 16:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Be Bold

Thanks for welcome and article check. Thought about being bold for Disinfo, but didn't want to get into an edit war...someone calling themselves Disinformer made 12 recent edits, which smelled funny to me...Elizabeth BY (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't know unless you try. He/She might be oblivious to WP:SOAP rules. Jaakobou 07:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Busted

Three cheers for creativity and effort, but I guess you'll ultimately get banned for this stunt.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 11.06.2008 06:36

Courtesy notice

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Pedrito's interest in Jaakobu -- Avi (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Your email

I received your email today. Please understand that for privacy reasons, I do not respond to Misplaced Pages emails. If you have a question, please post it publicly on my user talk page. Thanks. OrangeMarlin 18:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Israeli Culture Pictures

What's up? I noticed you added a picture of Jewish Folk Dancing. The culture section speaks of "diverse culture." Don't you think we should post a picture that isn't a Jewish activity? Maybe a non-religious or Christian, Muslim, other activity would better represent the section on the "diverse culture" of Israel. Beam 23:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Heyo Beamathan,

I'm not sure we disagree here. The folk dance is an amalgamation of several cultures and it being performed by Jewish-Israelis is the only reason for the "Jewish-Israeli" in the title. I don't think there's a need to "show" the culture of minorities on the Israeli page unless there's a section dedicated to just that. To clarify, I'm not objecting some addition of a non-Jewish cultural image but I can't seem to have anything appropriate come to mind. Also, I would not want to see the folk dancing image or any of the other two replaced.

Let me know if you have interesting suggestions though, Jaakobou 06:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe something from the ArabIsraeli minority would be good. I'll look around for a free image. Beam 12:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-17 Muhammad al-Durrah

Hello. I'm going to take over this MedCab case and try to work this stuff out. I posted in the talk page what I would like all participants to do to start. Hopefully this all works out well, I have zero intention of leaning towards any one side in this dispute, and I only care about getting it taken care of. Wizardman 18:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I just realized that I badly misread part of your presentation on the G.S. med case. On re-reading, I can only think that I must have confused your comments in two different sections. My sincere apologies. I have suggested that we re-start and have asked P. for some specific comments in response to yours. If he is unwilling to comment, I will move to close the case. Sunray (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the gesture. In general, my suggestion on how to resolve the problem (the way I see it) still stands. I'll keep following the page to see if Pedrito takes the time to reply to you. Jaakobou 20:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Israel ranks high among Middle Eastern countries on the bases of human development"

Can you please take a look at this? It was changed from "highest" on the Israel page, but the explanation is wrong IMO and it was done quite unilaterally, as I mentioned on the Israel talk page.Lawabider (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What was the reference for 'highest' and the given reasoning for taking it down a notch? Jaakobou 18:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Next steps

Pedrito has not yet responded to the message I left him on his talk page. I note that he has edited only once since then. However, you have participated in good faith and we cannot hold the case open much longer. Therefore, I propose the following course of action: 1) Allow Pedrito a few more days to respond. 2) If he does not comment further on the mediation page, I propose to suspend the mediation and make a brief summary of your arguments and his response, along with my questions to him on the G.S. talk page, requesting input from others. 3) Based on the outcome of that discussion, I will attempt to determine consensus on the matter. How does that strike you? Sunray (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll think about it for a bit and get back to you. Jaakobou 07:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

September 11th again

Re this. I am concerned that having for so long held out against merging a page about one reaction to 9/11 (ie the celebrations) into a main "Reactions .." page, you are now actively trying to promote the merger of the main "Reactions .. " article into the "Aftermath .." article. For now I'll assume good faith (even if you are describing it as a "mediocre article", which is an irrelevant point anyway assuming you are referring to the current content). Are you arguing that, were this to happen, that the "Celebrations .." article would still exist? That is, that every reaction except the celebration be merged into the Aftermath article? That would be pretty odd. In any event, the Aftermath article is quite clearly about the longer term real-world consequences of 9/11, especially those internal to the US. The "Reactions .." page is covering very different subject matter. You can reply and explain a bit more here. --Nickhh (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Question: Are you following my contributions and promoting a "let's battle with Jaakobou" atmosphere again? Jaakobou 13:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC) clarify. 13:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You've been doing a lot more following of me recently by the look of it, suddenly appearing on pages I was on and where you hadn't been for a while (al Durra etc). And yes, I looked in at the Reactions/Celebrations articles recently as I have been heavily involved in editing them. And I noticed the errors you have put into one of them, and put them right. This is good practice, even if you don't like it. And then I also noticed you trying to elicit support for some slightly odd merging, so I commented on that too. --Nickhh (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So, to clarify on your statement, are you calling your style of harrassment "good practice" now? Jaakobou 13:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No. I very clearly said putting errors right is good practice. How have I harrassed you anyway? --Nickhh (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(a) I request that you do not revert back to stalking my contributions.

(b) I'm not interested in prolonging this argument.

Cheers, Jaakobou 13:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Ffs - I have never "stalked" you, and you started this argument! Cheers indeed --Nickhh (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You'd never editted either page before Jaakabou had. Smells like a duck to me. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You've just made a bit of a fool of yourself I'm afraid. Check my talk page and both article history for just how involved I have been in the past, especially with the Reactions article. --Nickhh (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've divided by zero and still come up with 0 edits to either article for you. Was that quacking I heard? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the history of Imad Marie's sandbox version was not carried over into the article once it was created for real, so the full history may not be obvious there. But I have edited the Celebrations .. page quite a bit in the past, so I don't know how you missed that. HAnd having said all that, is turning up recently on one page where another editor you happen to have encountered before is also editing actually evidence of stalking anyway? By that definition, you stalked me here. Sorry for clogging up your talk page Jaakobou, but Kyaa came by to have a go at me as well, in slight ignorance of the facts, so I had to defend myself. --Nickhh (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The plain fact is that you appeared out of nowhere, decided to edit tendentiously on a IP article and are now trying to backpeddle frantically, Howard. Good show tho. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Merging Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks (mediocre article) into Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks

I think it's a good choice, merging Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks (mediocre article) into Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks while changing the title to Reactions and consequences of the September 11, 2001 attacks. -- SNIyer12 (talk), 15:38 UTC, 2 July 2008.

Agreed. The reactions article started off as a POV-fork of the Celebrations article regardless. It would be good to start a merger discussion on the Aftermath page with the merge to and from tags placed properly. Maybe it would be good to inform those who have made significant contributions as well. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Nickhh simply removed the merge tags with no discussion at all. A classic case of POV warrior IDONTHEARTTHAT tactics. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I notified the nominator first that he had not given any reason for adding the tag, and they had not done anything about that - it's nothing to do with POV it's to do with process. I very clearly said I would be willing to debate the issue if a debate were started in the proper way. Don't you ever get bored of making stuff up about me and slagging me off on everyone's talk page? --Nickhh (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Celebrations article

Probably would be in your best interest to start moving the material you feel is being lost from the celebrations article into the reactions article, although IMHO, the opposite should be done since the reactions article is a typical example of a pov content fork. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still considering how to handle this dispute in a manner that would last long term. Jaakobou 07:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No! Don't think long term! Can't have none of that! :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate that Jaakobou. Agreements are to be honoured, and that was the point of my defending the edit. On second thought, instead of waiting for you to turn up, I should have contacted you to join me on the defending the consensus. If I can be of use in any copyediting on historical articles you're working on, don't hesitate to ask me. I won't meddle, but just stick to stylistic problems. (p.s. the Ba'al Shem Tov 1777 pilgrimage certainly deserves a page, if it doesn't already exist)Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note. Like you I am reluctant to get sucked into an edit war on the King David Hotel, and have failed to have our consensual text restored. I just did adjust the text as it now stands, to read 'it has been argued' because the source asserts the connection but does not, to my knowledge, prove it. I am giving, like you, the page a rest. I hope you find my adjustment one that at least establishes the fact that Sandler and Enders view it this way, and other scholars may differ.Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Relating to the admin notice board

I'd like to quickly clarfy for you some misconceptions. To quote you:

"saying he's surprised that I'm not crying antisemitism. i.e. suggesting Jews always follow some mold of pointing a finger and whining "antisemitism" every time they face adversary. Comment: I initially summerized this issue as 'calling me a crying Jew'.

I take specfic issue with the text that I have italized; my remark, which was directed soley at you, as a general comment on tone & not as a WP:PA, had no meaning beyond relating to you. It did not refer in any way to jews, juadaism or Israel. It refered to you at that point of the discussion. I'm going to do something which you deined me and assume good faith; you may have simply misinterpreted what I said.
I am still oblivious to whether you are a jew or not, and quite frankly I'd like to keep it that way, as it really makes no difference to me. In closing I would urge you to please take individual responsibilty for your own actions & not tend towards making asumptions based on religion/ethnictity/whatever that simply don't exist. Thanks. ʄ!•¿talk? 12:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)